THE POTENTIAL OF SOCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY INTERVENTIONS IN LOCAL GOVERNANCE IN PALESTINE - Prepared By: Commissioned By
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
THE POTENTIAL OF SOCIAL
ACCOUNTABILITY INTERVENTIONS IN
LOCAL GOVERNANCE IN PALESTINE
Prepared By:
CARE-International in Egypt
Commissioned By:
GIZ-Palestine
January 2013
The Potential of Social Accountability Intervention in Local Governance in Palestine
DISCLAIMER:
Copyrights (c) CARE International and GIZ, 2013. All rights reserved.
This report was prepared by the Governance and Civic Engagement Team at CARE-International in Egypt
upon request from the Local Governance and Civil Society Development Programme – LGP at GIZ-
Palestine. The views expressed in the report do not reflect the official positions of either CARE or GIZ.
In order to enhance knowledge on the status of social accountability in Palestine, this report will be
made available for free on both CARE International in Egypt website www.care.org.eg and GIZ Palestine
website www.giz.de
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT:
Amr Lashin
Governance and Civic Engagement Program Director
CARE International in Egypt
34 Street 106, Hadayek El Maadi
Cairo 11431 Egypt
Mobile: +20109 777 3161
Phone: +202 25260096 - ext 234
Email: alashin@egypt.care.org
Website: www.care.org.eg
Valentina Maggiulli
Local Governance and Civil Society Development Programme - LGP
Advisor Civil Society
GIZ Programme House Al-Bireh
Deutsche Gesellschaft für
Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH
P.O. Box 38383 East Jerusalem 91383
Palestinian Territories
T + 972 (0) 2 2 408 541 Ext. 117
M + 972 0) 597 092 170
Email: valentina.maggiulli@giz.de
Website: www.giz.de
Page | 2
The Potential of Social Accountability Intervention in Local Governance in Palestine
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................................................4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................5
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................7
BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................................................7
SOCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY: AN OVERVIEW ......................................................................................... 10
SOCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY CONTEXT IN PALESTINE ............................................................................. 13
Transparency........................................................................................................................................... 13
Accountability ......................................................................................................................................... 14
Participation ............................................................................................................................................ 16
SOCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACTORS IN PALESTINE ............................................................................... 17
Local Government ................................................................................................................................... 17
Civil Society ............................................................................................................................................. 19
Media ...................................................................................................................................................... 22
Private Sector .......................................................................................................................................... 23
SUGGESTED ENTRY POINTS .............................................................................................................. 24
Rallying Support for Social Accountability .............................................................................................. 24
Capacity Building of Civil Society, Media and Government .................................................................... 25
Using Social Accountability Mechanisms to Monitor Perceived Corrupted Services ............................. 26
Coordinating Social Accountability Efforts ............................................................................................. 27
BIBLIOGRAPHY................................................................................................................................. 29
Page | 3
The Potential of Social Accountability Intervention in Local Governance in Palestine
ABBREVIATIONS
ANSA-AW Affiliated Network for Social Accountability in the Arab World
Multaqa Arab Through Forum
AW Arab World
AMAN Coalition for Integrity and Accountability
CSOs Civil Society Organizations
DGTTF Democratic Governance Thematic Trust Fund
HDI Human Development Index
LGUs Local Government Units
MoI Ministry of Interior
MoLG Ministry of Local Government
NGOs Non-Governmental Organizations
PA National Palestinian Authority
PACC Palestinian Anti-Corruption Commission
PLC Palestinian Legislative Council
MIFTAH Promotion of Global Dialogue and Democracy
PETS Public Expenditure Tracking Surveys
UN United Nations
PNGO IV WB’s fourth Palestinian NGO project
WACT Women’s Affairs Technical Committee
WB World Bank
Page | 4The Potential of Social Accountability Intervention in Local Governance in Palestine
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Although Palestine was recently recognized by the United Nations (UN) as a non-member observer state
on November 29th, 2012, it continues to lack complete state sovereignty over the Palestinian territories,
due to the continuing Israeli occupation. Weak governance in Palestine is very much related to the non-
sovereign nature of the state and the weakness of its institutions. Despite the very centralized nature of
Palestinian institutions on the national level, local institutions are decentralized as they have had a
crucial role in providing several services.
Social accountability complements formal accountability with citizen-led accountability mechanisms.
The significance of social accountability relies in providing a common platform on which different actors,
including government, CSOs, media, private sector, can work together. Transparency is a primary
building block for social accountability. Although, the PLC discussed a draft law on access to information
in 2005, the law was never passed resulting in low satisfaction of the public with the transparency of
public documents. There are nevertheless some positive transparency indicators. Financial management
seems more transparent on the national level than on the local levels. All financial managements and
reports are regularly made available by the Ministry of Finance on their website. Transparency also
seems to be widely accepted in the Palestinian NGO community as several NGOs upload information on
their activities, projects, and financial reports on Masader, an online portal.
Accountability is the second building block to social accountability. A number of accountability
institutions have been established since the formation of the PA. The State Audit and Administrative
Control Bureau and the Human Rights Independent Commission were founded in 1995; the Illicit Gains
Commission was founded in 2005; the Palestinian Anti-Corruption Commission (PACC) was later
founded in 2010. Palestinians however have negative perceptions regards accountability. According to a
2011 survey by AMAN, 40% expressed their dissatisfaction with follow-up on and resolving of public
complaints while 70% ranked the governmental efforts to tackle corruption as weak.
Participation of citizens is crucial in bridging the accountability gaps in the Palestinian framework. It is
ground breaking that specific mentioning is made in the National Development Plan 2011-2013 to social
accountability tools such as participatory planning and budgeting. Participation of citizens in local
government units (LGUs) in Palestine is not institutionalized. A number of steps were taken to
strengthen the integrity and legitimacy of LGUs. Based on a request from the MoLG, the UNDP
implemented a project that aimed at initiating an Integrity Tool. The findings of the toolkit revealed that
transparency and integrity performances of LGUs are low. A code of conduct was further introduced in
2011 by the PA as to increase accountability of LGUs.
CSOs usually offer the context in which citizens get organized to participate in social accountability
mechanisms. Although most CSOs in Palestine are engaged in service delivery, there are some key CSOs
that have been engaged in accountability issues including the Coalition for Integrity and Accountability
(AMAN), the Women’s Affairs Technical Committee (WACT) and the Arab Thought Forum (Multaqa).
CSOs are actually engaged to some degree with the government on both the national and local levels as
Page | 5The Potential of Social Accountability Intervention in Local Governance in Palestine
prominent civil society advocates are usually invited by government officials to discuss policy issues and
some have even influenced the adoption of a number of laws including NGOs law, the Labor law, and
the Civil Affairs Law in addition to contribution to a number of policy dialogues and plans such as
national dialogue on economic policies and the National Health Plan. A number of social accountability
tools were used by CSOs in Palestine such as social accountability indicators in the results framework,
transparent and participatory subproject selection processes, participatory planning and needs
assessments, citizen’s budget, community scorecards, social audits, in addition to some awareness
raising workshops on accountability.
This report suggest the main social accountability entry points as Palestine as follows: rallying support
for social accountability, capacity building of civil society, media and government, using social
accountability mechanisms to monitor public services and coordinating social accountability efforts.
Page | 6The Potential of Social Accountability Intervention in Local Governance in Palestine
INTRODUCTION
The Arab Spring has signaled out the willingness of Arab citizens to participate in and contribute to their
governance.1 It has further demonstrated an opportunity to create a more conducive environment to
accountability. That Arab Spring has to-date spread out to Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Yemen while is
currently underway in Syria. This cannot undermine the effects; the Arab Spring might have, on other
Arab countries.
Palestine stands out as a unique state model in the Arab World (AW). Palestine was recently recognized
by the United Nations (UN) as a non-member observer state on November 29th, 2012. The lack of state
sovereignty over the Palestinian territories, due to the continuing Israeli occupation, limits the
accountability capabilities of the National Palestinian Authority (PA). Therefore, social accountability
should be used to complement the traditional accountability mechanisms. This report aims at analyzing
the local accountability context in Palestine and at studying the potential of implementing/advancing
social accountability in local governance. The report will further shed the light on the entry points for
Social accountability in the Palestinian context through referring to regional and international case
studies.
The report is primarily based on desk research of primary and secondary sources available on the local
governance environment in Palestine. The report then went through a two-fold validation process. The
first validation stage will reflect the feedback received from GIZ-Palestine on an initial draft of the
report. The second validation stage considered feedback received from Palestinian participants in the
Social accountability Workshop that took place from 12-16 January, 2013 in Sharm Al-Sheikh, Egypt.
Outcomes of both validations stages were then incorporated into this final draft of the report.
The report is divided into five sections. Section One provides a background on the state of governance in
Palestine and the limited sovereignty of the state. Section Two offers an overview on social
accountability through differentiating between the traditional horizontal and vertical accountability
tools in comparison to social accountability mechanisms. Section Three gives insight on the three
integral components of social accountability (transparency, accountability and participation) within the
Palestinian context. Section Four analyzes the capacity and state of the main players in the social
accountability field (local government, civil society, media and private sector). Section Five suggest entry
points for the implementation of social accountability interventions in local governance in Palestine.
BACKGROUND
Weak governance in Palestine is very much related to the non-sovereign nature of the state and the
weakness of its institutions. Although the PA) was established in the 1994 alongside the Oslo Accords,
the PA has yet to become fully capable of carrying out its state functions.2 Under the Israeli occupation,
the PA was never able to exercise complete control over the Palestinian lands. By March 2000, the PA
extended “civil and security control over 17 percent of the West Bank (Area A) and about three quarters
of the Gaza Strip while maintaining civil control over 24 percent of the West Bank (Area B) with no
1
The term “governance” referred to in the report is “democratic governance” which is defined by the UNDP
as “a set of values and principles that underpin state society relations. This means allowing people, in particular
the poor and marginalized, to have a say in how they are governed, in how decisions are made and implemented,
in how diverging opinions are mediated and conflicting interests are reconciled in a predictable fashion and in
accordance with the rule of law.” Lister 2010, 6.
2
El-Kholy and Tschirgi 2010. Main state functions include preserving security and order and fulfilling citizens’ basic
needs. Since 1994, the PA has been representing the Palestinian people. AMAN 2009.
Page | 7The Potential of Social Accountability Intervention in Local Governance in Palestine
control over the remaining areas or its international borders.”3 Not only does this varying set of state
controls on the Palestinian territories limit the PA’s ability to control movement, but also restricts its
capacity to maintain oversight of its executive arm on both the national and local levels. This has also
been compounded by Israeli invasions of and military operations of Palestinian controlled territories
such as the invasion of Gaza between December 2008 and January 2009.4
The weakness of the different Palestinian state institutions is inherent in the way the PA was formed.
The establishment of the PA was characterized by “informal power networks, clientelism and
patronage.”5 It was hoped that building a sovereign Palestinian state would bring a democratically
elected government. The prolonged peace process nevertheless constrained the state building process
and constitutionalism therefore was pinned in favor of the peace talks.6 Considered as the symbol of
liberation, former President Yasser Arafat was invested with vast executive powers being the Chairman
of the PA.7 The centralized executive nature of the PA was echoed by a dis-functioning Palestinian
Legislative Council (PLC).8 The lack of a functioning PLC weakens the accountability context in Palestine.
The PLC is supposed to oversee the performance of the executive, including the President. A number of
initiatives were carried out by international organizations and donors aiming at enhancing the capacities
of Palestinian state institutions on the central level.9
Despite the very centralized nature of Palestinian institutions on the national level, local institutions are
decentralized. In order to make-up for the weak central institutions, local governments have been
crucial in providing several services including “creation and maintenance of roads, water and electricity
supplies, controlling of buildings, building permits, and infrastructure, plus providing health and
environment services.”10 This range of services indicates how significant and crucial local governments
are in the Palestinian context. As a result, local governments have always been under public pressure to
improve the services they provide.11 Not only did these pressures come entirely from the citizens, but
also from the national authorities. The internal political disputes amongst the Palestinian factions have
also contributed to these pressures. It is said that some politically motivated tensions have existed
between local and national governments.12 There has also been some movements from the PLA to
control over and limit the decentralization of the LGUs through granting the MoLG the authority to
dismiss elected local councils and to approve new appointments.13 Generally, the role of local
governments was complemented by a strong civil society. During the 1960s and 1970s, several non-
governmental organizations (NGOs) were established in order to provide social and medical services. 14
As the peace talks were not progressing, the PA has gradually come to put forward strengthening
governance and accountability as a priority.
3
Ibid.
4
El-Kholy and Tschirgi 2010a.
5
El-Kholy and Tschirgi 2010.
6
Ibid.
7
Ibid.
8
World Bank 2011a.
9
One example is the The Palestinian Authority Capacity Enhancement project (PACE) is a three-year, $21 million
program, that aimed at developing the capacities of Palestinian ministries and public institutions. Schulz 2011.
10
Sabri 2009.
11
Ibid.
12
El-Kholy and Tschirgi 2010a. The most obvious dispute is the division between Fath and Hamas since 2007.
13
UNDP 2009.
14
Kasabreh et al. 2012.
Page | 8The Potential of Social Accountability Intervention in Local Governance in Palestine
Despite a priority, a lot of work needs to be done to enhance the governance arena in Palestine. Since
2002, the Palestinian governmental interest in combating corruption has been on the rise due to
domestic and international, mainly donor-driven, pressures.15 In the National Development Plan 2011-
2013, the PA considers “Governance” as the first, out of four, strategic pillars.16 The Plan states that
“efficient, effective and accountable public institutions are indispensable for social cohesion, justice and
equality” and pledges to “promote more openness and accountability.”17 This reflects how significant
the issues of governance, accountability and transparency have become within the national
government. The World Bank (WB) praises for instance the steps that were taken by the PA since 2000
to improve economic governance and to fight corruption.18 These efforts were well received by citizens
as translated into material improvements. Surveys have documented an improvement in citizen rating
of public services and in citizenry perception of the PA.19
Despite these steps, governance in Palestine remains very weak. According to the WB’s Worldwide
Governance Indicators, Palestine scores very low on the six governance indicators: 20.7% on Voice and
Accountability, 3.3% on Political Stability, 30.3% on Government Effectiveness, 41.3% on Rule of Law,
20.9% on Control of Corruption and 59.2% on Regulatory Quality.20 The low scores require intensive
efforts to strengthen the Palestinian governance framework which can then have positive impacts on
development performance.21 This explains why the Strategic Framework for the Ministry of Local
Government 2010-2014 considers “good local governance able to achieve sustainable development with
effective community participation.”22
Strong governance frameworks limit the space for corruption and improve service delivery. Studies have
actually demonstrated a direct link between governance and the quality of public service delivery.23 In
countries with strong governance contexts, public spending on health and education lead to less
morality rates and higher school enrollments. 24Referring to the Human Development Index (HDI) that
includes indicators of life expectancy, educational attainment and living standards can help validate this
hypothesis. According to the HDI 2011, Palestine scores 114 out of 187 countries.25 This in fact requires
the allocation of more financial resources to improve the public services. At the same time, increasing
the allocated resources requires enhancing the accountability framework in order to prove beneficial for
the poor.26 Social accountability has emerged as an effective tool in enhancing accountability in
particular and governance in general.
15
AMAN 2009.
16
Palestinian National Authority 2011.
17
Ibid.
18
World Bank 2011a.
19
Schulz 2011.
20
World Bank 2011b. More information on the methodology of the indicators can be found at: Daniel Kaufmann,
Kraay, Aart and Massimo Mastruzzi. 2010. The Worldwide Governance Indicators : A Summary of Methodology,
Data and Analytical Issues. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 5430
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1682130
21
Ahmad 2008.
22
Ministry of Local Government 2010.
23
World Bank 2011a.
24
Ahmad 2008.
25
UNDP 2011.
26
Yilmaz 2008.
Page | 9The Potential of Social Accountability Intervention in Local Governance in Palestine
SOCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY: AN OVERVIEW
Social accountability complements formal accountability with citizen-led accountability mechanisms.
Accountability is defined as “the obligation of power-holders to account for or take responsibility for
their actions.”27 Not only do power holders refer to governmental officials but also to responsible
individuals in private institutions, media and civil society organizations (CSOs). Accountability is based on
the democratic notion that accountability is an obligation on all public workers.28 The poor are
traditionally the most vulnerable group to the lack of accountability. Poor people are obliged to use the
available public services as they do not have the luxury of paying for these services.29 Holding service
providers accountable will thus increase the efficiency and equity of these services.
There are a number of horizontal and vertical accountability mechanisms. Horizontal accountability
mechanisms are instituted by governments within their structures such as state audit institutions or the
different set of checks and balances within political systems.30 There are a long list of horizontal
accountability mechanisms including “(i) political mechanisms such as constitutional constraints,
separation of powers, the legislature, and legislative investigative commissions, (ii) fiscal mechanisms
including formal systems of auditing and financial accounting, (iii) administrative mechanisms, for
example, hierarchical reporting, norms of public sector probity, public service codes of conduct, rules
and procedures regarding transparency and public oversight, and (iv) legal mechanisms like corruption
control agencies, ombudsmen and the judiciary.”31 Although, these mechanisms are rooted in most
political systems, with different degrees of variations, they were not very effective. These mechanisms
were found to be insufficient in both the developed and developing countries.32 On the other hand,
vertical accountability represents direct mechanisms such as elections or indirect ones such as those led
by civil society.33 Figure 1 illustrates the different horizontal and vertical accountability mechanisms.34
27
Malena 2004, 2.
28
World Bank 2007.
29
Ahmad 2008.
30
Lister 2010. In the literature, horizontal accountability is sometimes referred to as top-down or as upward
accountability.
31
World Bank 2007.
32
Malena 2004.
33
Ibid. in the literature, vertical accountability is sometimes referred to as bottom-up accountability downward
accountability.
34
UNIFEM. 2008. Who Answers to Women? Gender and Accountability New York: UNIFEM in Lister 2010, 10.
Page | 10The Potential of Social Accountability Intervention in Local Governance in Palestine
Elections however have proven to be ineffective in holding power holders to account.35 Elections are a
one-time action by citizens within a defined time frame (ranging from 4-6 years) to choose a
representative, whether on the national, sub-national or local levels. In case representatives did not
adhere to their electoral promises, citizens have to wait until the upcoming elections. Elections further
grants oversight powers on public service providers to representatives only rather than citizens directly.
Under the “long accountability route”, citizens need to approach policy makers who in turn need to
influence service providers.36 Bringing this route short can be more effective in ensuring improvement of
service delivery. This does not undermine the significance of horizontal accountability mechanisms but
highlights the need to bridge both strengthen both horizontal and vertical accountability routes. Both
are seen impactful in ensuring the efficiency and effectiveness of public services.37 Empowering citizens’
capabilities to voice their needs can result in getting service providers to be more accountable and
responsive.38 Social accountability mechanisms reflect the empowerment of citizens to hold service
providers accountable.
Social accountability is defined as “an approach towards building accountability that relies on civic
engagement, i.e., in which it is ordinary citizens and/or civil society organizations who participate
directly or indirectly in exacting accountability. Mechanisms of social accountability can be initiated and
supported by the state, citizens or both, but very often they are demand-driven and operate from the
bottom-up.”39 The significance of social accountability relies in providing a common platform on which
different actors, including government, CSOs, media, private sector, can work together. Social
35
World Bank 2007.
36
World Bank 2004.
37
Kasabreh et al. 2012.
38
Malena 2004.
39
Ibid, 3.
Page | 11The Potential of Social Accountability Intervention in Local Governance in Palestine
accountability therefore aims at complementing, rather than, replacing horizontal accountability
mechanisms.40 An accountability framework that combines citizen-led accountability mechanisms in
addition to the horizontal ones becomes more effective. Social accountability has a number of building
blocks: 1- Identifying an entry point which might include budget allocations or performance of service
provider, 2- building an evidence base through compiling relevant public information which can either
be supply-side governmental data or demand-side users data, 3- public dissemination of findings
through holding public meetings and events and making use of media outlets, 4- building coalitions to
initiate collective actions and 5- advocacy with public officials to bring change.41
Social accountability mechanisms include classical tools such as raising awareness of legal rights and
advocacy for example.42 Accountability becomes even more effective if social accountability mechanisms
are built-in the state accountability system which is termed as “diagonal accountability”.43 This can take
place through effective engagement of citizens in existing accountability frameworks such as public
commissions and hearings, citizen advisory boards and advisory committees.44 Other tools are primarily
citizen-led such as community score cards, citizen report cards, and social audits but can include space
for dialogue and cooperation with citizens. The community scorecard, although includes separate
evaluation of the target services by citizens and governments, brings both groups together to exchange
their findings, initiate dialogue and agree on interventions.45 The vast increase of countries adopting
social accountability mechanisms from less than 60 in 1985 to over 140 in 2007 sheds light on the
significance of social accountability.46 It has become evident that social accountability leads to
improvements on both the operational and outcome levels. Operational changes can include better
performance of civil servants or adoption of disciplinary measures whilst outcomes refer to overall
improvements in the institutional environment and behavior of employees.47
The success of social accountability depends on the surrounding legal, political, social and economic
contexts. The primary perquisites for social accountability include: access to public information,
capability of citizens to voice their needs and state capacity to respond to these needs.48 Some social
accountability mechanisms require a level of technical and analytical competence. For instance,
participatory budgeting or public expenditure tracking surveys require the actors involved to have at
least budget literacy skills. Studying the potential of introduction social accountability mechanisms in
local governance in Palestine requires analyzing the social accountability contextual factors namely,
transparency, accountability and participation.
40
World Bank 2007.
41
Malena 2004.
42
Ibid.
43
Ibid. Diagonal accountability is sometimes referred to as hybrid or transversal accountability.
44
Ibid.
45
World Bank 2007.
46
Lister 2010.
47
World Bank 2007.
48
Ibid.
Page | 12The Potential of Social Accountability Intervention in Local Governance in Palestine
SOCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY CONTEXT IN PALESTINE
Transparency
Transparency is a primary building block for social accountability. Transparency is defined as “openness
in the processes and procedures in performing and reporting on the designated function.”49 Openness
requires making information on the processes and procedures of service delivery available to the public.
The data captured from these public documents are crucial for all social accountability activities and
significantly impacts the success of these activities.50 It makes sense to believe that holding someone
accountable requires having a set of data on which accountability are based. It is further argued that
preliminary social activities might require focusing on advocating for access to information legislation. 51
Whether Palestine has legislations according access to public information becomes significant when
examining the potential of social accountability interventions. Although, the PLC discussed a draft law on
access to information in 2005, the law was never passed.52 Without a legislative requirement, accessing
public documents is near to impossible.53 This explains why surveys examining satisfaction of the public
with the transparency of public documents returns average to low satisfaction. According to a 2010
survey, carried out by AMAN-Coalition for Integrity and Accountability (AMAN), citizens reported
average satisfaction (53.8%) with available information and procedures on public services and
dissatisfaction (37.4%) with justice, transparency and equality of service provision.54 Low levels of
satisfaction with available information and the lack of the right to request information negatively
impacts the levels of transparency in Palestine.
There are nevertheless some positive transparency indicators. Financial management seems more
transparent on the national level than on the local levels. All financial managements and reports are
regularly made available by the Ministry of Finance on their website.55 This is always looked at as a
positive step which unfortunately is not replicated by local government units. Although, local
government units upload information on projects on their websites, budgets are not made available.56
Perceptions of local governments regards transparency have not yet fully developed. Mayors of local
governments are opposed to ideas of making council meetings’ minutes available to public, disclosure of
financial statements and opening council meeting for the public.57 Transparency, on the other hand,
seems to be widely accepted in the Palestinian NGO community. Several NGOs upload information on
their activities, projects, and financial reports on Masader, an online portal that was established by the
WB, and continues to be funded by the 822 NGO subscribed members.58 Much work is needed to
encourage other NGOs to subscribe to the portal. Legal protection to the right of access to information
need to be adopted and the culture of transparency needs to be strengthened in both the local and civil
society sectors in Palestine.
49
Lister 2010, 8 in UNDP.2011. Country Assessment in Transparency and Accountability. New York: UNDP.
50
Malena 2004.
51
Ibid.
52
AMAN 2012a. Despite the appointment of a commission to address the disclosure of public documents, the
issue was never resolved. AMAN 2009.
53
World Bank 2011a. Unfortunately, Palestine is neither covered in the Global Right to Information ratings nor the
Open Budget Index rankings.
54
AMAN 2010.
55
AMAN 2012a.
56
Kayed 2010.
57
Sabri 2009.
58
Kasabreh et al. 2012.
Page | 13The Potential of Social Accountability Intervention in Local Governance in Palestine
Accountability
Accountability is the second building block to social accountability. Lack of accountability can lead to a
crisis of legitimacy amongst citizens and their governments.59 Accountability is said to be very affected
with weak checks and balances, lack of separation of power and absence of rule of law.60 The separation
of powers in the Palestinian context is somehow defect as neither the Palestinian President nor the
cabinet, are require under the existing laws, to report to other monitoring bodies.61 The un-monitored
vast executive powers of the president and the ministers have negative signals on separation of powers.
It is therefore important to consider the available accountability mechanisms in the Palestinian context.
There are a number of legislations that deal with horizontal accountability including: Money Laundry
Law, Consumers Protection Law, Anticorruption Law, and Standards and Specifications Law.62 The
existence of legislations does not solely indicate accountability as whether these laws are enforced by
the law enforcement agencies is more important. Palestine scores low (41.3%) on Rule of Law in the WB
Worldwide Governance Indicators.63 An analysis of the state bodies invested with law enforcement
might shed more light on the rule of law and the accountability framework in Palestine. A number of
accountability institutions have been established since the formation of the PA. The State Audit and
Administrative Control Bureau and the Human Rights Independent Commission were founded in 1995;
the Illicit Gains Commission was founded in 2005; the Palestinian Anti-Corruption Commission (PACC)
was later founded in 2010 in addition to different internal monitoring and complains department within
different public agencies were further established.64 The PACC, despite the recent establishment, was a
breakthrough being responsible for a broadened range of corruption offenses and for investigation and
prosecution of all corruption activities.65 Despite the number of public agencies responsible for
enforcing accountability; it is argued that the PACC and Illicit Gains Commission require greater
independence from the executive branch.66 Not only does accountability depend on the existing laws
and regulations, but also on how citizens perceive the accountability of government.
Palestinians have negative perceptions regards accountability. The issue goes back to 2004 when a
number of surveys on corruption perceptions highlighted that corruption and integrity were the two
most determinant factors for votes in selecting their candidates in local elections.67 Putting corruption
and integrity on the top selection criteria signifies the high degree of perceived corruption in the public
sector. In 2011, the public sector continues to be considered as the number one corrupt sector in
Palestine.68 Figure 2 below ranks the corrupted sectors.69
59
Malena 2004.
60
World Bank 2011.
61
AMAN 2009.
62
Bisharat 2012.
63
World Bank 2011b.
64
Bisharat 2012.
65
World Bank 2011a.
66
AMAN 2009.
67
El-Kholy and Tschirgi 2010.
68
AMAN 2012a, 49.
69
Ibid.
Page | 14The Potential of Social Accountability Intervention in Local Governance in Palestine
The corruption issue remains timely. In a 2011 survey by AMAN, 40% expressed their dissatisfaction with
follow-up on and resolving of public complaints70 while 70% ranked the governmental efforts to tackle
corruption as weak.71 Figure 3 below illustrates the widespread corruption forms in the public sector in
2011.72
Despite these high perceptions on corruption in the public sector, actual experience with corruption is
relatively low. Connections (wasta in Arabic) can be taken as the example in this case being regarded by
Palestinians as the most prominent form of corruption.73 Although 80% of the surveyed thought that
connections played a role in public recruitment, only 15% said that they have resorted to connections. 74
It was astonishing that bribery is not perceived a problem by Palestinians. For example, 2% only said
they used bribery to access public services.75 This disparity is very critical and relates to how the
relationship between citizens and the government. One interpretation to this problem is called a “lag
effect” according to which the current perceptions of people mainly depend on past experiences and do
not reflect recent reforms in the system. The problem can also be linked to socio-economic conditions of
the surveyed sample as some of the unemployed might relate their unemployment status to the
corruption of the government rather than to other external factors such as personal qualification and
70
AMAN 2010.
71
El-Kholy and Tschirgi 2010.
72
AMAN 2012a, 16.
73
World Bank 2011a.
74
Ibid.
75
Ibid.
Page | 15The Potential of Social Accountability Intervention in Local Governance in Palestine
market conditions.76The accountability issue might be further inter-linked to transparency.
The more information on public services is available, the less perceptions on corruption might be.
Participation of citizens in planning and monitoring public services can also lessen unrealistic
perceptions.
Participation
Participation of citizens is crucial in bridging the accountability gaps in the Palestinian framework. It is
ground breaking that specific mentioning is made in the National Development Plan 2011-2013 to social
accountability tools such as participatory planning and budgeting.77 This actually indicates a state
commitment to and understanding of to the PA towards the significance of participation. Participation is
further seen by the Ministry of Local Government (MoLG) as to strengthen transparency and
accountability in the Palestinian context.78 Linking participation to transparency and accountability all
contribute towards establishing a favorable environment for adopting social accountability.
Nevertheless, the lack of mechanisms through which effective participation of citizens is identified as a
threat by MoLG.79 Social accountability mechanisms therefore can bridge the current participation gap
in local governance in Palestine.
Participation of citizens in local government units (LGUs) in Palestine is not institutionalized. According
to the MoLG, participation of citizens in LGUs takes place through four dimensions: 1-information
disclosure through publications of reports and financial statements, 2- consultation through consultative
meetings, town hall meetings, complaint boxes and neighborhood committees, 3- participatory planning
and decision making through needs assessments and participation in development of strategic plans and
4-in-kind and financial contributions.80 Although seem a cohesive and comprehensive set of
participation mechanisms, the adherence to these mechanisms by LGUs is what matters. For instance,
the participation of communities in the Khalil, Naples and Areeha municipalities was found to be un-
systemized and only limited to meetings and workshops with no participatory dimensions to planning or
decision making.81 The lack of effective participation is capture by the MoLG stating that 82
“Participation practices are limited to a number of LGUs and are not
institutionalized, particularly in the absence of a public participation policy and
binding regulations. In addition, the level of public’s involvement vacillates
based on the understanding of citizens and institutions of their role in
promoting democracy and good governance concepts and supporting local
development. In many cases, public participation is superficial, ineffective and is
not representative of the local community. There are challenges in
communication between citizens and public institutions from one hand, and
citizens and the LGUs on the other.”
Ministry of Local Government,
The National Strategy to Achieve the MDGs by 2015
76
Ibid.
77
Palestinian National Authority 2011.
78
Ministry of Local Government 2012.
79
Ibid.
80
Ibid.
81
Kayed 2010
82
Ministry of Local Government 2012.
Page | 16The Potential of Social Accountability Intervention in Local Governance in Palestine
The absence of a regulatory framework through which participation mechanisms are rooted is a
challenge. Making use of the current state adherence in the National Development Plan 2011-2013 to
participation can pave the way to developing the participation friendly framework. LGUs can work with
NGOs in order to encourage civic engagement and to highlight the significance of participation in LGU
affairs. There is a limited number of joint initiatives between NGOs and the local
councils/governments.83 The capacities of the different actors (local government, civil society, media
and private sector) need to be assessed and analyzed in relation to implementing social accountability
mechanisms.
SOCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACTORS IN PALESTINE
Government
Assessing the capacity of local government and the legislative framework in which it operates is
necessary in understanding how social accountability mechanisms fit within that context. The capacity
of public administration to respond to the findings of social accountability initiatives is a prerequisite for
their success.84 If the local government lacks the required capacity to be responsive to the outcomes of
social accountability mechanisms, citizens and the civil society will refrain from participating as the
process will be looked at as ineffective. The local administration system is Palestine is very
decentralized.85 This assuredly goes back to the fact that Palestine does not full sovereignty over its
territories which requires the local governments to have a degree of decentralization in their operations.
According to a 2010 survey by the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, there are 557 localities served
by 512 local authorities; 121 municipalities providing services to 150 localities; 12 local councils
providing services to 14 localities; 237 village councils providing services to 249 localities; 113 project
committees providing services to 115 localities, and 29 offices in refugee camps providing services to 29
localities/camps.86 Some LGUs have been operation throughout the Israeli occupation and even before
the formation of PA. The current form of the LGUs was framed during the British mandate that lasted
from 1916 to 1948.87 The LGUs have been responsible for providing municipal and recovery services to
the Palestinian population.88 Post the formation of the PA, the MoLG was established in order to extend
their oversight on the LGUs that have always exercised self-governance.89 LGUs are currently regulated
by a hybrid legal framework.
The legal framework is derived from Ottoman, British, Jordanian and Egyptian Laws.90 The Law No. 1 for
Local Governments that was passed in 1997 by the PA did not provide obligations on LGUs to assure
transparency, accountability, and community participation.91 Later amendments to that law worked to
extend a larger degree of administrative and financial centralization of power in the hands of the MoLG
through the discretion of the Minister of Local Governance to dismiss elected local councils and to
approve new appointments.92 According to the MoLG’s Strategic Framework for 2010-2014, the MoLG
83
El-Kholy and Tschirgi 2010a.
84
Malena 2004.
85
El-Kholy and Tschirgi 2010a.
86
Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics 2010.
87
El-Kholy and Tschirgi 2010.
88
Ibid.
89
Ibid.
90
Ibid.
91
Ibid.
92
UNDP 2009.
Page | 17The Potential of Social Accountability Intervention in Local Governance in Palestine
will work to support LGUs in achieving “democracy, transparency and community participation.”93
Despite the centralized administrative authority by the MoLG, the LGUs are relatively financially
dependent as only 15% of their revenues are disbursed by the PA.94 There are even disparities between
the budgets of municipalities depending on the water and electricity projects run by each one.95
A number of steps were taken to strengthen the integrity and legitimacy of LGUs. Based on a request
from the MoLG, the UNDP implemented a project that aimed at initiating an Integrity Tool.96 The
Integrity Toolkit aimed at addressing “integrity issues in five specific areas in the work of local councils:
(a) local council board decisions; (b) Financial Unit; (c) Engineering Unit; (d) Procurement Unit; (e)
community participation.”97 The Toolkit aimed at identifying strengths and weaknesses of LGUs through
measuring their quality of performance, the degree of responsiveness to community needs, the
availability of integrity procedures, the public’s opportunities in holding LGUs accountable, and the level
of LGUS’ compliance to laws and regulations.98 The Toolkit further involved examining administrative
and financial records in LGUs.99 The toolkit was a good initiative but was not standardized in all
municipalities and was not well publicized in the local government sectors.100 The findings of the toolkit
revealed that transparency and integrity performances of LGUs are low. 101
Findings of the Integrity Toolkit
“Performance of LGUs with regards to transparency and integrity are low in particular
in the LGUs relations with the community participation in 9/15 LGUs and in 8/15 LGUs
respectively. Accountability is low in 11/15 LGUs in particular regarding Engineering
and Planning and in 9/15LGUs regarding Administrative Systems and Human
Resources. Accountability is high in 9/15 LGUs regarding the financial systems. Level of
Community Participation is very low in all the LGUs.”
Other measures were introduced to foster the capacity and accountability of LGUs. A code of conduct
was further introduced in 2011 by the PA as to increase accountability of LGUs.102 There have been
increased efforts to build the capacity of LGUs who were unfortunately not consulted before the design
of these trainings.103 This have made some of these training seen irrelevant and ineffective for LGUs. 23
municipalities have opened citizen service centers to provide integrated services.104 On the other hand,
municipalities are facing several challenges including “to the ongoing conflict, contraction of the
economy, poor municipal management, and citizens‘ non-payment of municipal fees and taxes
93
Ministry of Local Government 2010, 3.
94
AMAN 2009.
95
Sabri 2009.
96
El-Kholy and Tschirgi 2010.
97
Ibid.
98
UNDP.
99
UNDP.
100
Ibid.
101
Bisharat 2012.
102
World Bank 2011.
103
UNDP 2009.
104
World Bank 2011.
Page | 18The Potential of Social Accountability Intervention in Local Governance in Palestine
especially since the second Intifada in 2000.”105 More legitimacy was awarded to LGUs in the mid-2000s.
The local elections of 2004-2005 reflected a movement from the PA to have LGUs representative of the
community.106 The democratic process was suspended after the split between Hamas and Fatah in
2007.107 The local elections that were scheduled to take place in 2007 and in 2011108 based on a PLC’s
resolution but were not actually held until December 2012.109
LGUs on the other hand lack transparency, participation from the community and engagement from the
civil society or the private sector. There are no regular meeting between official at the local councils for
instance and the population.110 Local councils do not publish their administrative or financial reports and
a participatory route in developing the plans with the community is rarely followed.111 There are no
clear means to handle complaints due to the “the unstable relationship of local councils to the Ministry
of Local Government, the institutional instability of the Ministry of Local Government itself, the
weakness of the judiciary, and a culture of unwillingness to hold local councils accountable for political,
factional or partisan considerations.”112 There is further no institutionalized relationship with either
CSOs or with private sector institutions.113
Civil Society
The civil society is a principle player in the field of social accountability. The capacity of CSOs and their
legitimacy in the community are deciding factors for the success of social accountability mechanisms. 114
CSOs usually offer the context in which citizens get organized to participate in social accountability
mechanisms. According to the National Development Plan 2011-2013, the PA commits itself to expand
the role of civil society in extending oversight on the performance of public institutions with regards to
their accountability and service delivery.115 This commitment from the PA, the supreme national
authority, backs-up the implementation of social accountability by CSOs. CSOs are governed by the
Charitable Societies and Non-Governmental Organizations Law No 1 of 2000 under which the Ministry of
Interior (MoI) is responsible for registering NGOs.116
Most of CSOs in Palestine are engaged in service delivery. Around 1500 out of the 2445 registered CSOs
provide a wide range of social services including “social protection, health, early childhood
development, mental health, education, care for the elderly, support for people with special needs, and
agricultural and environmental issues.”117 Carrying out the role of service delivery, CSOs complement
both the national and local governments’ roles and fill in the gaps in this regard. The role of CSOs is
praised by the MoLG in saying that “Civil society has played a vital role in Palestine. It has encouraged
Palestinians to stay on their land and has provided health and education services.”118 On the other hand,
105
Ibid.
106
El-Kholy and Tschirgi 2010a.
107
El-Kholy and Tschirgi 2010.
108
AMAN 2012a.
109
Blow 2012.
110
AMAN 2009
111
Ibid.
112
Ibid.
113
Ibid.
114
Malena 2004.
115
Palestinian National Authority 2011.
116
AMAN 2009.
117
Kasabreh et al. 2012, 1.
118
Ministry of Local Government 2012, 16.
Page | 19The Potential of Social Accountability Intervention in Local Governance in Palestine
trade unions and syndicates do exist but mostly focus on issues only of interest to their members while
undertaking some activities that aim at enhancing civic engagement.119
There are some key CSOs that have been engaged in accountability issues in Palestine. The key CSOs in
the field are the members AMAN and the Women’s Affairs Technical Committee (WACT).120 AMAN was
founded in 2000 as the first network of CSOs with clear focus on accountability and integrity121 with
their activities focused on civic education and fighting corruption in the public, private and non-
governmental sectors.122 WACT on the other hand are women-focused, as their name indicates. WACT
aims at strengthening women’s voice, with a particular concentration on women from rural areas, and
at advocating for more accountability of institutions towards the needs of women.123 The Arab Thought
Forum (Multaqa) is dedicated to undertaking activities aiming at nation building and accountability and
transparency of LGUs.124 The Palestinian Initiative for the Promotion of Global Dialogue and Democracy
(MIFTAH) focuses on access to information, strengthening the media’s role in accountability and
increasing accountability of public institutions.125 Whether civil society is engaged with the government
is a significant issue.
CSOs are engaged to some degree with the government on both the national and local levels. Prominent
civil society advocates are usually invited by government officials to discuss policy issues.126 This in fact
sheds light on the positive lens through which the government looks at the role of civil society. This
constructive engagement with the government has turned the advocacy efforts of CSOs fruitful. For
instance, CSOs influenced the adoption of a number of laws including NGOs law, the Labor law, and the
Civil Affairs Law in addition to contribution to a number of policy dialogues and plans such as national
dialogue on economic policies and the National Health Plan.127 AMAN in particular has been successful
working with the different executive, legislative and judicial departments through training public
employees on transparency and accountability related issues.128 For instance, a memorandum of
understanding was signed between AMAN and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad according to which the
government committed to cooperate with the CSOs to adopt a national anti-corruption plan.129 The
senior level cooperation reveals the high degree of cooperation and understanding between the
government and civil society. Although CSOs are given the required freedom to operate, pressures are
sometimes exerted by the government on CSOs not to publish reports that expose the corruption of
some governmental institutions.130 Analysis of the activities carried out by CSOs in the fields of
accountability will then follow.
A number of initiatives in the fields of social accountability were undertaken by CSOs in Palestine. The
WB’s fourth Palestinian NGO project (PNGO IV) introduced a number of social accountability
mechanisms such as “social accountability indicators in the results framework, transparent and
participatory subproject selection processes, and participatory planning and needs assessments to
119
Ibid.
120
Bakrania 2010.
121
El-Kholy and Tschirgi 2010.
122
Bakrania 2010.
123
Ibid.
124
Ibid.
125
Ibid.
126
Abdel Shafi 2004.
127
Ibid.
128
Ibid.
129
AMAN 2009.
130
Ibid.
Page | 20The Potential of Social Accountability Intervention in Local Governance in Palestine
inform decision-making at multiple levels.”131 From March until June 2012, 27 scorecards, a social
accountability tool, were used to collect feedback regards the implementation of project activities and
their relevance to the needs of community members.132 The Teacher Creativity Center in partnership
with the Ministry of Education implemented a social audit that brought together 600 students from 20
public schools in order to monitor and evaluate the projects implemented within their areas of
residence through holding project staff accountable.133 CSOs have also organized a number of hearing
sessions to public officials ranging from ministers to municipality officials. AMAN held hearing session in
2011 for the Accountant General regards excessive expenses of PA officials134 and another hearing
session for the Chief of Water.135 Sound of Society in partnership with Women Activity Center organized
a hearing session for Chief of Al Moghazi municipality in the presence of 24 community members. 136
Some awareness raising workshops on social accountability were organized by CSOs. A workshop was
held by the MoLG on the role of social accountability in local institutions.137 Integrity Action held a one
day event for 45 youth on community monitoring in which a session on social accountability was
delivered.138
Additional initiatives were undertaken by the CSOs in the general fields of accountability and
transparency. Through a UNDP fund, AMAN developed a code of conduct that was signed by 100 local
councils in addition to a draft citizen complaints system.139 AMAN further developed a code of conduct
for public employees for the Union of Public Employees, the Teachers’ Association and the Union of
Health Workers.140 A Democratic Governance Thematic Trust Fund (DGTTF) by UNDP was further used
to develop the Integrity Toolkit for local councils.141 In the fields of budget transparency, a number of
NGOS successfully advocated with the Minister of Finance to develop a Citizen’s Budget that aim at
mystifying the budget to easy-read and understood text by lay citizens.142 Increase adoption of these
codes of conducts and integrity tools and monitoring of their implementation requires additional efforts.
There are however some challenges that face CSOs in implementing social accountability activities. CSOs
are said to lack themselves transparency and good governance within their internal operation and with
regards to their relationship with their communities.143 This in fact negatively affects CSOs’ legitimacy
and their ability to raise awareness and build capacity on accountability when they do not adhere to in
their practice. Figure 4 below outlines the accountability relations between CSOs and communities144
131
Kasabreh et al. 2012. More information on the project can be found here
132
Ibid.
133
Teacher Creativity Center 2011.
134
AMAN 2011.
135
AMAN 2008.
136
Municipality 2010.
137
Ma’an 2012.
138
Integrity 2012.
139
El-Kholy and Tschirgi 2010a.
140
AMAN 2009.
141
Ibid.
142
AMAN 2012a.
143
Abdel Shafi 2004.
144
Kasabreh et al. 2012, 4.
Page | 21You can also read
